Florida Governor Bans Foreign Citizens From Buying Land in Florida
May 29, 2023 —
Michael Gnesin - Lewis BrisboisFt. Lauderdale, Fla. (May 19, 2023) - Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed a bill prohibiting Chinese citizens who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents from purchasing any residential or commercial land or farmland in Florida.
Senate Bill 264, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” will prohibit Chinese nationals from buying land unless they are American citizens or permanent residents. The bill also imposes certain restrictions on Chinese citizens – and others, including Russians and Venezuelans – with non-tourist visas when it comes to buying land near a military base in Florida. For example, and in an exception to the new law, Chinese citizens with non-tourist visas would be limited to buying fewer than two acres of land that is at least five miles away from any military institutions.
Senate Bill 264 reads in pertinent part:
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent agricultural land or any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in such land in this state….
…A foreign principal may not directly or indirectly own, or have a controlling interest in, or acquire by purchase, grant, devise, or descent any interest, except a de minimis indirect interest, in real property on or within 10 miles of any military installation or critical infrastructure facility in this state…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Gnesin, Lewis BrisboisMr. Gnesin may be contacted at
Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ABC, Via Construction Industry Safety Coalition, Comments on Silica Rule
February 18, 2020 —
Rachel O'Connell - Construction ExecutiveThe Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) has responded to OSHA’s request for information regarding changes to the “Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica – Specified Exposure Control Methods Standard,” also known as the silica rule. Specifically, OSHA requested comments in mid-August on potential changes to Table 1, which designates compliance actions for a range of conditions and tasks exposing workers to respirable crystalline silica.
CISC, comprised of 26 members including Associated Builders and Contractors, has formally requested that OSHA expand compliance options. “Expanding Table 1 and otherwise improving compliance with the rule is of paramount importance to member associations and contractors across the country,” CISC tells OSHA Principal Deputy Loren Sweatt. “Based upon feedback from contractors, both large and small, compliance with the rule remains challenging.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel O'Connell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Expert Can be Questioned on a Construction Standard, Even if Not Relied Upon
August 07, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s not uncommon in construction defect litigation for each side retain one or more experts to give their opinion as to whether something was constructed in accordance with the standard of care. This usually results in what we legal practitioners call a “battle of the experts.”
The California Code of Civil Procedure and Evidence Code include specific provisions applicable to experts including when they must be disclosed, when and how they can be deposed, and what opinions they can render. When attempting to challenge an expert it is not uncommon for one side to argue that the other side’s expert did not consider a certain fact or certain standard in reaching his or her opinion, therefore, allowing that party to argue at trial that the expert’s opinion is somehow flawed.
However, there are also certain limitations, including a limitation restricting a party from cross-examining an expert on any scientific, technical, or professional test, treatise, journal or similar publication if the witness did not rely on such publication in arriving at or forming his or her opinion. The next case,
Paige v. Safeway, Inc. (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 1108, involved a case of first impression: Namely, whether an expert who did not rely on a publication in forming his or her opinion can nevertheless be questioned on a publication (in this case an ASTM standard) because the publication is a “reliable authority.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
“Wait! Do You Have All Your Ducks in a Row?” Filing of a Certificate of Merit in Conjunction With a Complaint
January 13, 2020 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Barrett v. Berry Contr. L.P., No. 13-18-00498-CV, 2019 Tex. LEXIS 8811, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas considered, among other things, the procedural timing requirements of filing a certificate of merit in conjunction with a complaint. The court concluded that the proper reading of the statute requires a plaintiff to file a certificate of merit with the first complaint naming the defendant as a party.
In Barrett, after sustaining injuries while working at a refinery, David Barrett (Barrett) filed suit against Berry Contracting, LP and Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd. on July 6, 2016. In Barrett’s first amended complaint, which he filed on August 23, 2016, Barrett added Govind Development, LLC (Govind) as another defendant. Barrett subsequently filed a second amended complaint (omitting Govind) and, on December 27, 2017, shortly before the statute of limitations ran, a third amended complaint (reasserting claims against Govind). On January 28, 2018, after the statute of limitations period ran, Barrett filed a certificate of merit. Govind filed a motion to dismiss the claim, asserting that Barrett violated the statute that required a certificate of merit to be filed with the complaint, Tex. Civ. Prac & Rem. Code §150.002.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §150.002(a) states,
In any action or arbitration proceeding for damages arising out of the provision of professional services by a licensed or registered professional, a claimant shall be required to file with the complaint an affidavit of a third-party licensed architect, licensed professional engineer, registered landscape architect or registered professional land surveyor…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLPMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Client Alert: Service Via Tag Jurisdiction Insufficient to Subject Corporation to General Personal Jurisdiction
August 27, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Martinez v. Aero Caribbean (No. 3:11-cv-03194-WHA, filed 8/21/2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held service of process on a corporation's officer, within the forum state, does not establish general personal jurisdiction over the corporation unless the corporation's contacts with the forum render it essentially at home in the state.
Decedent, Lorenzo Corazon Mendoza, was traveling by airplane when the plane crashed, killing everyone aboard. Defendant Avions De Transport Régional (ATR) manufactured the airplane that crashed. Plaintiffs Lorenzo Martinez, Eliezer Martinez, Eliu Mendoza and Gloria Montes (Plaintiffs) filed suit against ATR as heirs of decedent.
ATR is a business entity organized under French law with its principal place of business in France. It is not licensed to do business in California, and it has no office or other physical presence there. It has purchased parts from California suppliers, sent representatives to California to promote its business, and advertised in trade publications available in California. It has also sold airplanes to a California corporation. Empire Airlines flies from Santa Barbara to Ontario using ATR planes on a regular basis; however, Empire Airlines purchased the ATR planes secondhand from third parties, and never directly from ATR. At the time of the crash, ATR North America (a wholly owned subsidiary of ATR) had its headquarters in Virginia, and has since relocated to Florida.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy
December 31, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the November 21, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series,
John Jerry Glas discussed how construction lawyers should adjust their trial strategies in response to shifts in juror attitudes. Glas believes that jurors have changed in the last twenty years, with modern jurors being more reluctant than ever to be seen as a lawyer’s puppet. Instead, they simply want a lawyer to help them organize and wade through evidence without spinning it and without spoon-feeding it. Essentially, Glas believes that lawyers achieve better jury trial results if they acknowledge the paradigm shift in jury psychology and reinvent themselves in response by influencing jury deliberations without directly telling a jury what to do. Glas refers to this as the “Waiter Pivot” and recently published a
book on the topic.
Throughout his presentation, Glas discussed how construction lawyers can embrace the Waiter Pivot throughout a jury trial:
- Voir Dire: Lawyers make their first impressions on a jury during voir dire. As such, lawyers should avoid questions that make jurors feel judged or stereotyped. Instead, give the jurors credit and make use of the opportunity to begin framing their case. For example, Glas once repeated the word “specifications” or “specs” in every question during voir dire where his product liability case turned on whether or not the product deviated from specifications.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage
March 14, 2018 —
Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPUnfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in
Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense.
In
Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage.
After the
Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense.
The key issue before the
Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued.
In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the
Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may
potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid.
While
Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs.
Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under
Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later.
Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com.
ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating.
For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
